If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above.
You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed.
To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

But the scientists KNEW it was bad! They protested vigorously (there
are videos of it all over the net), but the politicians still won the
day. Government is the enemy. Big Food are their cronies.

No, that's in your jaundiced conspiracy world view, where the
scientists decades ago knew that margarine was bad for you.

The scientists knew that there was nothing wrong with butter
(saturated fat, etc.), and that the long-term affects of eating
trans-fat were unknown (until around the '90s).
Do you think New Yorkers are clamoring for restrictions on salt, drink
and meal size, etc? Or do you think that Nanny Bloomberg is just an
ignorant fascist douchebag, like I do?

What Bloomberg is doing isn't the issue.

Yes it is. You make it sound like the people are creating this
so-called "demand." They are not. It's the politicians. It's always
the politicians (and their Big Food cronies).
The issue is that
the mainstream scientific and medical belief at this point in
time is that excessive salt and super-sized sugary drinks
are bad for people.

Define: "excessive salt."

If you have normal blood pressure, you can pretty much eat all the
salt you want. Of course, morons like you don't like to test things
like BP, cholesterol, BC, etc., so...

Fact: ALL sugary drinks are bad for you. Why ban just super-sized
ones?
So, Bloomberg is REACTING to what
is considered sound, mainstream science today.

No he's not, because there is no consensus regarding salt! For the
vast majority of us, salt is just fine, even desirable! Even
necessary!

Bloomberg is doing exactly what McGovern did: He's pushing an agenda
that has nothing to do with science. Zero. Nada. Zilch.

Pointing out that it was PUSHED on a mostly gullible population is not
rewriting history. It's simply telling the truth.

See the above.

No, you see the above.

[...]
This is not a matter of whether people should be forced to do what
they have no interest in doing (I'm against that!). *It's all about
doing things scientifically, and pointing out ways to do it and get
the best possible results.

There you go again. Forced? Who said anything about
forcing anyone to do anything? You were speaking out against
being a little bit low carb.

That's exactly right. That's exactly my opinion. And I provided the
reasons why I felt that way. You don't have to agree with them, I
really don't care what you think about anything, anyway.

But others might appreciate a different way of looking at the topic.
They might want to improve their odds of success.
If you're happy being a chubby little man, who has no idea what his
actual health is (because you apparently don't want to know), by all
means, keep doing what you're doing.

I want you to. *And Darwin would want you to.

Nice.

Thank you!
Wheat (even small
amounts) stimulates appetite, and who wants that?
If you have some studies that show that wheat as
opposed to other similar foods has that effect, I'm
sure we'd all like to see them.

Read the book.
In other words, as usual, you have no studies to support
the assertions.

[...]
No, you have it backwards. It was PUSHED on the public for purely
political reasons.
You just can't read. *I specifically said:
"But as Doug and I pointed out, the companies are just
responding to what the mainstream opinion was which
created demand for a product.

You said the public was demanding it. It wasn't. It was PUSHED on the
public, totally because of political, not scientific, considerations.

One more time, this is what I said:

"The market demand is for a product that does not use
a specific component, be that gluten, transfat, fat, etc.
That demand is driven by what people are choosing to buy
based on the latest information from govt, health "experts",
fads, etc. In the specific case, the alleged evils of wheat
and gluten, there is demand emerging for products that
are gluten free. So, maufacturer's are coming up with
new formulations that leave the gluten out. That is what
the market is demanding. So, they try to products similar
to what is selling well now, except leave the gluten out.
What they put in instead is up to them and will be driven
by how it effects the product, what it tastes like, what it
costs, etc. "

The concept of market demand, consumer demand is an
economic one. It just means that some consumers WANT
TO BUY THAT PARTICULAR PRODUCT. Supermarkets
have products with wheat in them. They have products that
are wheat free. They have butter, they have margarine.
Consumers are free to choose what they want. If there
was no demand for a product, companies would not put
it on the shelves.

And that demand is creatied by people reacting to the latest
science and medicine news, govt recommendations, and
even books like Atkins and Wheat Belly. The concepts are
simple, try to follow.

No, that's in your jaundiced conspiracy world view, where the
scientists decades ago knew that margarine was bad for you.

The scientists knew that there was nothing wrong with butter
(saturated fat, etc.), and that the long-term affects of eating
trans-fat were unknown (until around the '90s).

BS. Back 30 years ago, most scientists and doctors believed
eating margarine was healthier than eating butter. Most still
believe it today, except that now they say to eat only margarine
that is not made from transfats.

Do you think New Yorkers are clamoring for restrictions on salt, drink
and meal size, etc? Or do you think that Nanny Bloomberg is just an
ignorant fascist douchebag, like I do?
What Bloomberg is doing isn't the issue.

Yes it is. You make it sound like the people are creating this
so-called "demand." *They are not. *It's the politicians. It's always
the politicians (and their Big Food cronies).

Obviously you are as ignorant of economics as you are of
science.. Consumer demand simple means that people want
to buy that product. If they did not want to buy it, then it would
not sell. Very simple.

The issue is that
the mainstream scientific and medical belief at this point in
time is that excessive salt and super-sized sugary drinks
are bad for people.

Define: "excessive salt."

If you have normal blood pressure, you can pretty much eat all the
salt you want. Of course, morons like you don't like to test things
like BP, cholesterol, BC, etc., so...

I don't have to define anything. The simple facts are that most
of the scientific and medical world says that almost all of us are
eating too much salt. And it's not some vast conspiracy, where they
know it's a lie. What exactly would be the point to getting people
to eat less salt, if it's not because most medical authorities believe
it's unhealthy? Just to have another conspiracy for you to rant
about?

Fact: ALL sugary drinks are bad for you. Why ban just super-sized
ones?

The theory is that whatever size one you have, you are likely
going to consume the whole thing. So, if you have a small one
instead of a huge one, you're likely to wind up taking in less sugar.
Again, really simple concept.

So, Bloomberg is REACTING to what
is considered sound, mainstream science today.

No he's not, because there is no consensus regarding salt! For the
vast majority of us, salt is just fine, even desirable! Even
necessary!

Again, that is simply not true. The mainstream health
authorities, the govt, etc have been telling people for years that
the typical American is eating way too much salt. Just because
there are some who disagree doesn't change that.

You brought up Bloomberg and he's a good example of the
silliness of your argument.
Because if Bloomberg is not trying to reduce the amount of
salt people consume and the amount of sugary drinks because
of the science and medicine behind it, then why on earth would
he be doing it? Just for the hell of it? Geez....

And when Bloomberg was proposing his bans on salt and
large sodas, what went along with it in the media? Reporting
on the obesity epidemic, how health authorities agree we drink
too much sugar laden soda, eat too much salt, etc.

Or in your universe did you see news coverage where they
said, "Gee, no one can figure out why Bloomberg wants to
do that because everyone agrees lots of sugar drinks, lots
of salt are perfectly fine for you?" See any of that? No,
all you saw was coverage that sodas and salt are indeed
bad and the debate was whether Bloomberg's methods
would make a difference, should the bans be put into place,
are they the right approach to the problem, etc.

There you go again. *Forced? * Who said anything about
forcing anyone to do anything? *You were speaking out against
being a little bit low carb.

That's exactly right. That's exactly my opinion. And I provided the
reasons why I felt that way. *You don't have to agree with them, I
really don't care what you think about anything, anyway.

Spoken like the extremist you are.

But others might appreciate a different way of looking at the topic.
They might want to improve their odds of success.

The point was you were arguing that LC has to be all or
nothing. And again, what odds of success? I gave you
an example of someone who is not overweight, is not diabetic,
is healthy, but chooses to reduce carbs by just eliminating some
refined carbs like bread, pasta, etc. They are already successful,
they aren't a diabetic trying to lose 100lbs. So, I say if they want
to reduce carbs and it works for them, fine. You say, they have
to either be doing your versions of LC or the highway. There isn't
even agreement as to exactly what the definition of LC is.
So, if someone chooses to just cut back some of their refined
carbs and it works for them, it's fine by me.
Wheat (even small
amounts) stimulates appetite, and who wants that?
If you have some studies that show that wheat as
opposed to other similar foods has that effect, I'm
sure we'd all like to see them.
Read the book.
In other words, as usual, you have no studies to support
the assertions.

[...]
No, you have it backwards. It was PUSHED on the public for purely
political reasons.
You just can't read. *I specifically said:
"But as Doug and I pointed out, the companies are just
responding to what the mainstream opinion was which
created demand for a product.

You said the public was demanding it. It wasn't. It was PUSHED on the
public, totally because of political, not scientific, considerations.

One more time, this is what I said:
[...]

You can repeat yourself until the cows come home, but you'll be just
as wrong each and every time you do.
No, that's in your jaundiced conspiracy world view, where the
scientists decades ago knew that margarine was bad for you.

The scientists knew that there was nothing wrong with butter
(saturated fat, etc.), and that the long-term affects of eating
trans-fat were unknown (until around the '90s).

BS. Back 30 years ago, most scientists and doctors believed
eating margarine was healthier than eating butter. Most still
believe it today, except that now they say to eat only margarine
that is not made from transfats.

No, only the "scientists" who think the Scientific Method is a way to
avoid getting your girlfriend pregnant.
Do you think New Yorkers are clamoring for restrictions on salt, drink
and meal size, etc? Or do you think that Nanny Bloomberg is just an
ignorant fascist douchebag, like I do?
What Bloomberg is doing isn't the issue.

Yes it is. You make it sound like the people are creating this
so-called "demand." *They are not. *It's the politicians. It's always
the politicians (and their Big Food cronies).
Obviously you are as ignorant of economics as you are of
science.. Consumer demand simple means that people want
to buy that product. If they did not want to buy it, then it would
not sell. Very simple.

They buy it for the same reasons that people play Three Card Monte,
think that Al Gore is a scientist and that we're all gonna die!, etc.
The issue is that
the mainstream scientific and medical belief at this point in
time is that excessive salt and super-sized sugary drinks
are bad for people.

Define: "excessive salt."

If you have normal blood pressure, you can pretty much eat all the
salt you want. Of course, morons like you don't like to test things
like BP, cholesterol, BC, etc., so...

I don't have to define anything.

No, you don't. Because you can't.

In the absence of hypertension, there is essentially no scientific
reason that you shouldn't enjoy as much salt as you like. Especially
if you're eating REAL foods, getting enough potassium, etc.

But since morons like you don't see any reason to test or measure for
things like that, go ahead. Restrict your salt. Fly blind!
The simple facts are that most
of the scientific and medical world says that almost all of us are
eating too much salt.

What? Did you take a poll?

But the FACT remains, there is no credible scientific evidence that
salt is bad for our health. Quite the contrary, in fact.

IGNORANCE, the same disease you suffer from. And the fascist tendency
to try to control the behaviors of others. Also like you. It's no
wonder that you and Nanny Bloomberg are birds of a feather.
Fact: ALL sugary drinks are bad for you. Why ban just super-sized
ones?

The theory is that whatever size one you have, you are likely
going to consume the whole thing.

Oh, really? A person can't just buy *two* drinks instead?

Perhaps Nanny Bloomberg could mandate that you can only order one
donut? How about limiting the size of cakes to just one small slice?

Really, you're about the dumbest person I've ever encountered
anywhere.
So, Bloomberg is REACTING to what
is considered sound, mainstream science today.

No he's not, because there is no consensus regarding salt! For the
vast majority of us, salt is just fine, even desirable! Even
necessary!

Again, that is simply not true.

It's 100% true, and just a little googling can prove it.
You brought up Bloomberg and he's a good example of the
silliness of your argument.
Because if Bloomberg is not trying to reduce the amount of
salt people consume and the amount of sugary drinks because
of the science and medicine behind it, then why on earth would
he be doing it? Just for the hell of it? Geez....

Because he's just as ignorant as you are, and because he probably
thinks it will reduce health care costs. And becsuae he's a freakin'
Nanny.
And when Bloomberg was proposing his bans on salt and
large sodas, what went along with it in the media? Reporting
on the obesity epidemic, how health authorities agree we drink
too much sugar laden soda, eat too much salt, etc.

First, we don't eat too much salt. Period.

Second, we don't need government telling us how much soda pop we can
drink.

Yes, we have an obesity epidemic. No, there's no one-size fits all
solution to it.

Third, health authorities have never agreed on anything, and that's a
"good thing."
There you go again. *Forced? * Who said anything about
forcing anyone to do anything? *You were speaking out against
being a little bit low carb.

That's exactly right. That's exactly my opinion. And I provided the
reasons why I felt that way. *You don't have to agree with them, I
really don't care what you think about anything, anyway.

Spoken like the extremist you are.

Extremism in defense of ignorance is almost a moral obligation.
But others might appreciate a different way of looking at the topic.
They might want to improve their odds of success.
The point was you were arguing that LC has to be all or
nothing.

Do you take straw men to bed with you at night?

What I said was, there are things you can do, and shouldn't do, that
will affect your odds of success. Yes, whether you define success as
losing a few pounds, losing a lot of pounds, eliminating the need to
take drugs (your favorite love potion!), avoiding metabolic syndrome
and diabetes, becoming more fit, etc.
And again, what odds of success? I gave you
an example of someone who is not overweight, is not diabetic,
is healthy, but chooses to reduce carbs by just eliminating some
refined carbs like bread, pasta, etc.

Look, this newsgroup isn't all the Little Trader Boy. The information
that I provide may help others.

See above.
Wheat (even small
amounts) stimulates appetite, and who wants that?
If you have some studies that show that wheat as
opposed to other similar foods has that effect, I'm
sure we'd all like to see them.
Read the book.
In other words, as usual, you have no studies to support
the assertions.

As usual, crickets.

I showed you (and others) where you can find the studies (since
apparently you aren't capable of googling anything that doesn't have
something to do with AIDS). And that's all I'm going to do.